renting dead money

Monty Burnz

StillWaters wrote: »

I don't think anyone would argue the case that it is always a good time time to buy, burned as we are by our recent history. I think the issue is in a normal functioning property market is it economically more efficient to buy or rent.

I argue the former, and and renters pay a premium for mobility.

But "It's always a good time to buy" is the corollary of "rent is dead money" - if you are not renting, you are buying (or living for free somewhere, I guess).

So people here are arguing that it's always a good time to buy, whether they realise it or not. I wouldn't count on them having thought it through that far though, relying instead on the the thought-terminating cliché that is the thread title.

areyawell

dirtyden wrote: »

Where is this house for 55k in cork city centre? A well maintained 3 bedroomed terraced city centre house for 55k (that is if it is like the one you have shown above)? Unless it floods every year or is built on an indian burial ground I find this hard to believe.

The house you have shown is Dunmanway which is a long way from Cork city centre. i take it you cannot find something similar on daft, or just the original ad of the house your friend bought to back this up?

Apologies Its a two bed roomed house as why he is only renting one other room.
Its also on the suburbs about 2-3km from the city centre, I think of the suberbs as the city centre ha. Only one I could find on daft for 55k was this one

http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=583031

and

http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=600934

but his one is in a lot better knick than the two of those.

Milk & Honey

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Such as? I don't understand how you are in a position to say who downsizers will sell to, and how many landlords will leave the market, and how many of those will sell to other landlords.

Have I made similarly controversial claims?

Yes. You have made comments on these issues. Are they not controversial just because you have said them?

Monty Burnz

areyawell wrote: »

Apologies Its a two bed roomed house as why he is only renting one other room.
Its also on the suburbs about 2-3km from the city centre, I think of the suberbs as the city centre ha. Only one I could find on daft for 55k was this one

http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=583031

and

http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=600934

but his one is in a lot better knick than the two of those.

Are you sure your mate wasn't pulling your leg? You couldn't get a decent liveable place in Cork City/suburbs for that kind of price in the early nineties.

Monty Burnz

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Yes. You have made comments on these issues. Are they not controversial just because you have said them?

I have asked you to explain how you could know these things. I've explained the rationale for my claims and I don't think many people would argue with the rationale (e.g higher prices = lower demand, people don't start families simply because more houses are on the market, etc.).

What is your rationale for claiming to know that downsizers won't be selling to investors, and for knowing that the number of investors who do buy from downsizers will not balance the number of landlords leaving the market?

Gary The Gamer

It is dead money. I'm in a nama property and the receivers couldn't give a ****. I stopped paying rent after 3 months and I'm still here over a year later. They can't kick you out without protacted legal proceedings. Even then they can't claim money back unless they have a forwarding address for you when you finally do leave.

dirtyden

areyawell wrote: »

Apologies Its a two bed roomed house as why he is only renting one other room.
Its also on the suburbs about 2-3km from the city centre, I think of the suberbs as the city centre ha. Only one I could find on daft for 55k was this one

http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=583031

and

http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=600934

but his one is in a lot better knick than the two of those.

Those 2 place are a bit of a shambles! 2 beds makes more sense but i am still surprised if he got a well maintained 2 bed for that price, which side of the city? I am a nosey bastard!

Milk & Honey

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I have asked you to explain how you could know these things. I've explained the rationale for my claims and I don't think many people would argue with the rationale (e.g higher prices = lower demand, people don't start families simply because more houses are on the market, etc.).

What is your rationale for claiming to know that downsizers won't be selling to investors, and for knowing that the number of investors who do buy from downsizers will not balance the number of landlords leaving the market?

You are now talking about rationale as being supporting evidence? Just because something seems a certain way to you then it must be so?

Landlords cannot get finance to but investment properties to any great extent. That is no secret. Many are being forced to sell or are being repossessed. No secret. Result - more investors getting out than leaving. Result fewer transactions involve investors buying from whoever is selling.

What is your rationale for saying otherwise?

Monty Burnz

Milk & Honey wrote: »

You are now talking about rationale as being supporting evidence? Just because something seems a certain way to you then it must be so?

Are you going to disagree with those points, or are you just going to pretend they are controversial?

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Landlords cannot get finance to but investment properties to any great extent. That is no secret. Many are being forced to sell or are being repossessed. No secret. Result - more investors getting out than leaving. Result fewer transactions involve investors buying from whoever is selling.

Ok, that's more like it.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

What is your rationale for saying otherwise?

My rationale is as follows: there are two broad classes of landlord operating in Dublin (the market I know best):

1. Professional landlords with large portfolios, built over a long period.
2. Amateur landlords with (say) 5 or fewer properties, bought back during the 2000s when everyone thought 'rent is dead money' and 'property only goes up'.

The second class of landlord is in big trouble - many of them will be subsidising their tenants, and a huge percentage of them are in default on their mortgages. These are the guys who you correctly say may be forced out of the market.

Waiting to capitalise on this: the professional landlords with large portfolios on low LTVs. These guys have no trouble accessing capital and are now looking to build their portfolios buy buying up 'distressed' properties. And because they are buying much cheaper, they can charge lower rents than the amateur landlords and still make a profit, putting the former class in even more trouble.

So do I think landlords are leaving the market? Yes, for sure. The total number of different landlords may indeed drop, as you say. But the big professional landlords are expanding and this will compensate for the amateurs who are forced out.

I could say 'will more than compensate', but that is unknowable at this time and is in the same class of claim as those I was complaining about when you made them.

Milk & Honey

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are you going to disagree with those points, or are you just going to pretend they are controversial?

Ok, that's more like it.

My rationale is as follows: there are two broad classes of landlord operating in Dublin (the market I know best):

1. Professional landlords with large portfolios, built over a long period.
2. Amateur landlords with (say) 5 or fewer properties, bought back during the 2000s when everyone thought 'rent is dead money' and 'property only goes up'.

The second class of landlord is in big trouble - many of them will be subsidising their tenants, and a huge percentage of them are in default on their mortgages. These are the guys who you correctly say may be forced out of the market.

Waiting to capitalise on this: the professional landlords with large portfolios on low LTVs. These guys have no trouble accessing capital and are now looking to build their portfolios buy buying up 'distressed' properties. And because they are buying much cheaper, they can charge lower rents than the amateur landlords and still make a profit, putting the former class in even more trouble.

So do I think landlords are leaving the market? Yes, for sure. The total number of different landlords may indeed drop, as you say. But the big professional landlords are expanding and this will compensate for the amateurs who are forced out.

I could say 'will more than compensate', but that is unknowable at this time and is in the same class of claim as those I was complaining about when you made them.

So you know big professional landlords will compensate but if you go further and say will more than compensate it is unknowable. You are relying on assertion, not evidence.

You are making an assumption that there are big professional landlords waiting around with large capital sums.
That these same individuals will charge less than other landlords.
That they are expanding.

These professional landlords will charge as much as the market will bear. They did not get to be big professional landlords by being soft on tenants. If rents fall they will not buy until the yield gets to a suitable level. Big professional landlords have little incentive to buy at the moment. The banks are not interested in financing them. The tax regime is changing. There are new taxes coming down the line. Capital gain is years away.

Monty Burnz

Milk & Honey wrote: »

So you know big professional landlords will compensate but if you go further and say will more than compensate it is unknowable. You are relying on assertion, not evidence.

You are making an assumption that there are big professional landlords waiting around with large capital sums.
That these same individuals will charge less than other landlords.
That they are expanding.

Again, please argue against these points if you think they don't make sense. Don't just wave your arms around and pretend they are controversial.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

These professional landlords will charge as much as the market will bear. They did not get to be big professional landlords by being soft on tenants.

The point is that they can out-compete the amateurs by charging less - not that they will charge less. As rents drift down, more and more amateurs will get squeezed out - not so the professionals.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

If rents fall they will not buy until the yield gets to a suitable level. Big professional landlords have little incentive to buy at the moment. The banks are not interested in financing them. The tax regime is changing. There are new taxes coming down the line.

Yields are knocking on 10% for some distressed properties. That's pretty good - if could get better yet, of course, as property continues to lose value for the next five years or so. Big landlords don't necessarily need to talk to Irish banks for finance - they can self-finance or borrow abroad.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Capital gain is years away.

The amateurs got into it for capital gain. The pros are there for the yield.

StillWaters

As rents drift down - but rents are not drifting down. You know well supply is tightening in Dublin. Professionals wouldn't be entering otherwise.

Monty Burnz

StillWaters wrote: »

As rents drift down - but rents are not drifting down. You know well supply is tightening in Dublin. Professionals wouldn't be entering otherwise.

This is getting confusing: I'm assured that professionals both are and are not entering the market!

StillWaters, I agree that in the last year or so, rents have firmed up. But I think that rents will carry on their downward drift over the next few years as people have less money to spend and economic gravity reasserts itself.

Milk & Honey

The are other categories of investor. Big investors who over reached into development and are now in receivership/ NAMA. The properties they owned are now being sold off.
You have produced no evidence that there are large investors active in the market to the point where they are driving down rents. The recent experience is that rents are rising. The July Allsops auction had many receiver properties. They had previously been let. Large investors did not buy them. they were bought buy owner occupiers.
Which foreign financial institutions are prepared to lend on Irish residential investment property? The foreign banks are getting out or Ireland and its property market as quickly as possible.
Yields are good on distressed properties because there are very few buyers. Even at that may properties will not yield 10 to 12%. A three bed semi sold near me recently for €440k. Rent would be about €20K gross at most. That is less than 5%. What investor would touch it?
Yield is much less significant in property than capital appreciation.
In parts of Dublin there are multi unit pre 63 properties on the market. They are not selling quickly, and if they are selling, it is for conversion to family homes.
You are simply dreaming about large investors who are going to force rents down.

Monty Burnz

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The are other categories of investor. Big investors who over reached into development and are now in receivership/ NAMA. The properties they owned are now being sold off.

You are thinking of developers, not large landlords. Can you name any large landlords who are bankrupt? This should be an easy claim to for you to prove - go on, I know you hate to back up your claims but give it a go!

Milk & Honey wrote: »

You have produced no evidence that there are large investors active in the market to the point where they are driving down rents. The recent experience is that rents are rising. The July Allsops auction had many receiver properties. They had previously been let. Large investors did not buy them. they were bought buy owner occupiers.

Can you provide evidence that investors are not active in the market? I can provide evidence that they are, and evidence that banks are lending to investors:

Post-auction statistics also show that a two-thirds majority were in attendance for business purposes rather than seeking a personal home -- 66pc were investors who were either buy-to-let landlords or developers seeking to complete or improve existing properties for sale.

Bank finance among Allsop bidders and buyers has increased steadily over the past year with successive auction sessions producing 14pc, 24pc, 40pc and now 52pc coming with viable loan approval.

MORE than half of all registered bidders and buyers who attended the Allsop Space auction earlier this month were bank financed -- the first time that loan-equipped buyers have been in the majority since the monster property auctions started just over a year ago.

The company says that 52pc of those registered to bid on the day had bank finance to varying levels of the purchase price.

The figure is significant as it indicates that banks may be getting back into the mortgage market once again and beginning to target investors.

So there go your claims up in flames, and mine are supported by actual empirical evidence.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Which foreign financial institutions are prepared to lend on Irish residential investment property? The foreign banks are getting out or Ireland and its property market as quickly as possible.

Apparently not.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Yields are good on distressed properties because there are very few buyers. Even at that may properties will not yield 10 to 12%. A three bed semi sold near me recently for €440k. Rent would be about €20K gross at most. That is less than 5%. What investor would touch it?

Presumably investors are not interested in expensive 3 bed houses with low yields - but why would that be a surprise to you? In other surprise news, taxi drivers snub the Bugatti Veyron, preferring Skoda Octavias.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Yield is much less significant in property than capital appreciation.

Ok, this tells me that either you don't have a clue what you are talking about or are deliberately bullsh!tting. Surely even the most ignorant of Celtic Tiger speculators have learned that this is complete nonsense at this stage? If you think this is true, I suggest you read even the most basic introductory book on the subject.

By the way, now that I have proved that investors are active in the market and that banks are lending on investment properties, perhaps you might try to find some proof for your claims?

Monty Burnz

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The are other categories of investor. Big investors who over reached into development and are now in receivership/ NAMA. The properties they owned are now being sold off.

You are thinking of developers, not large landlords. Can you name any large landlords whose companies are in receivership? This should be an easy claim to prove.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

You have produced no evidence that there are large investors active in the market to the point where they are driving down rents. The recent experience is that rents are rising. The July Allsops auction had many receiver properties. They had previously been let. Large investors did not buy them. they were bought buy owner occupiers.

Can you provide evidence that investors are not active in the market? I can provide evidence that they are, and evidence that banks are lending to investors:

Post-auction statistics also show that a two-thirds majority were in attendance for business purposes rather than seeking a personal home -- 66pc were investors who were either buy-to-let landlords or developers seeking to complete or improve existing properties for sale.

Bank finance among Allsop bidders and buyers has increased steadily over the past year with successive auction sessions producing 14pc, 24pc, 40pc and now 52pc coming with viable loan approval.

MORE than half of all registered bidders and buyers who attended the Allsop Space auction earlier this month were bank financed -- the first time that loan-equipped buyers have been in the majority since the monster property auctions started just over a year ago.

The company says that 52pc of those registered to bid on the day had bank finance to varying levels of the purchase price.

The figure is significant as it indicates that banks may be getting back into the mortgage market once again and beginning to target investors.

So there go your claims up in flames, and mine are supported by actual empirical evidence.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Which foreign financial institutions are prepared to lend on Irish residential investment property? The foreign banks are getting out or Ireland and its property market as quickly as possible.

Apparently not - somebody is lending to these people.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Yields are good on distressed properties because there are very few buyers. Even at that may properties will not yield 10 to 12%. A three bed semi sold near me recently for €440k. Rent would be about €20K gross at most. That is less than 5%. What investor would touch it?

Presumably investors are not interested in expensive 3 bed houses with low yields - but why would that be a surprise to you? In other surprise news, taxi drivers snub the Bugatti Veyron, preferring Skoda Octavias.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Yield is much less significant in property than capital appreciation.

Ok, this tells me that either you don't have a clue what you are talking about or are deliberately bullsh!tting. Surely even the most ignorant of Celtic Tiger speculators have learned that this is complete nonsense at this stage? If you think this is true, I suggest you read even the most basic introductory book on the subject.

By the way, now that I have proved that investors are active in the market and that banks are lending on investment properties, perhaps you might try to find some proof for your claims?

Jo King

Monty Burnz wrote: »

and mine are supported by actual empirical evidence.

[/U]?

Puff from auctioneers is empirical evidence? There are lies damned lies and statistics.

Monty Burnz

Jo King wrote: »

Puff from auctioneers is empirical evidence? There are lies damned lies and statistics.

I'm as sceptical about puff and propaganda from VIs as the next person as can be seen here and on other threads. These are actual factual numbers - the propaganda comes in when the VIs try to spin them.

dttq

I would call it dead money, yes. The reason been, that renting in the Irish property market costs you the same, if not more than a mortgage on a monthly basis. At least after a mortgage is paid for after a 20-30 years time frame, you (a) have an asset which is worth a lot more than what it was when you paid for it in the beginning, and (b) you no longer have to pay for accommodation continually into your retirement years, which is what renters will be doing after you have finished paying your mortgage.

That and most rented accommodation in Ireland is a disgrace. You are paying the same on a monthly basis for a shoddy, run down kip with horrible furniture, drafts, neglected gardens etc. when you could be doing what you want decoration and maintenance-wise with your own property.

MadsL

dttq wrote: »

I would call it dead money, yes. The reason been, that renting in the Irish property market costs you the same, if not more than a mortgage on a monthly basis. At least after a mortgage is paid for after a 20-30 years time frame, you (a) have an asset which is worth a lot more than what it was when you paid for it in the beginning, and (b) you no longer have to pay for accommodation continually into your retirement years, which is what renters will be doing after you have finished paying your mortgage.

Is it any wonder I and other posters get frustrated. Have a read back and try to understand why monthly payments are not the only factor in deciding if you should rent or buy in a particular market.

That and most rented accommodation in Ireland is a disgrace. You are paying the same on a monthly basis for a shoddy, run down kip with horrible furniture, drafts, neglected gardens etc. when you could be doing what you want decoration and maintenance-wise with your own property.

I do believe, and it is a belief having rented in Ireland for 15 years, that Irish landlords are slowly getting the message that "crying chair" furnishings and shoddy decorating standards should be a thing of the past.

Social Welfare landlords are utterly shameless in this regard and should have rent docked until they bring their properties up to standard.

UCDVet

This is like two six year olds arguing over whether or not Apples are better than Bananas or whether a Hammer is more important than a Saw.

Renting and buying are two different things. They each have Pros and Cons. If you can't explain why someone would want to rent, and why someone else would want to buy - you don't know enough about either.

If you think it's always better to rent, or if you think it's always better to buy - you don't know enough about either.

Milk & Honey

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm as sceptical about puff and propaganda from VIs as the next person as can be seen here and on other threads. These are actual factual numbers - the propaganda comes in when the VIs try to spin them.

They are spin. Do they tell you how many of the properties were owned by investors before they were sold?
Where else would bottom fishers go? The Allsop auction is designed to flush out the bottom fishers. Low reserves are calculated to ensure the vast majority of the offerings sell on the day. Look at the source of the properties. They are coming from receivers and banks.
As for finance, they don't say whether the investors or the home buyers had the finance. Home buyers can get finance if they have a reasonably strong proposition.
The Allsops situation cannot be extrapolated across the entire market.

As for large developers also being landlords there are many examples. Liam Carroll of Zoe had a large personal portfolio for example.

Capital gain is twice as significant as yield in property investment. I did the maths on it many years ago. I projected capital values and rents out over a 10 year period indexing each for inflation. Over the long term this is what happens.
Obviously you never did the maths.

Monty Burnz

Milk & Honey wrote: »

They are spin. Do they tell you how many of the properties were owned by investors before they were sold?
Where else would bottom fishers go? The Allsop auction is designed to flush out the bottom fishers. Low reserves are calculated to ensure the vast majority of the offerings sell on the day. Look at the source of the properties. They are coming from receivers and banks.
As for finance, they don't say whether the investors or the home buyers had the finance. Home buyers can get finance if they have a reasonably strong proposition.
The Allsops situation cannot be extrapolated across the entire market.

As for large developers also being landlords there are many examples. Liam Carroll of Zoe had a large personal portfolio for example.

Capital gain is twice as significant as yield in property investment. I did the maths on it many years ago. I projected capital values and rents out over a 10 year period indexing each for inflation. Over the long term this is what happens.
Obviously you never did the maths.

I'll read this post when you start providing any sort of back-up for your claims. At present you have exactly SQUAT.

Milk & Honey

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'll read this post when you start providing any sort of back-up for your claims. At present you have exactly SQUAT.

As much as you!
http://www.lisney.com/Files/Publications/LisneyAnnualReview2011_251119432.pdf

Sales activity was focused on the starter and middle-end
of the market as the profile of buyers shifted away from
investors and existing owners re-mortgaging to first-timebuyers
and mover-purchasers. In the first nine months
of the year, first-time-buyers accounted for 38% of the
market compared to 17% in 2006. Mover-purchasers
accounted for 23% in the first nine months of 2010.
Additionally, first-time-buyers are taking advantage of the
falling prices and are opting to buy houses in preference
to apartments when possible.

Monty Burnz

Milk & Honey wrote: »

As much as you!

I think anybody reading the thread can see that I have provided information, sourced from the only people in a position to have that information, that proves my claims.

You have provided NOTHING. You are starting to look ridiculous.

Monty Burnz

Milk & Honey wrote: »

As much as you!
http://www.lisney.com/Files/Publications/LisneyAnnualReview2011_251119432.pdf

Sales activity was focused on the starter and middle-end
of the market as the profile of buyers shifted away from
investors and existing owners re-mortgaging to first-timebuyers
and mover-purchasers. In the first nine months
of the year, first-time-buyers accounted for 38% of the
market compared to 17% in 2006. Mover-purchasers
accounted for 23% in the first nine months of 2010.
Additionally, first-time-buyers are taking advantage of the
falling prices and are opting to buy houses in preference
to apartments when possible.

lol - which of your claims is this supposed to prove? That downsizers don't sell to investors? That capital appreciation is 'more important' (?) than yield?

Shouldn't your 'proof' really be related in some way to what you are claiming?

Milk & Honey

Monty Burnz wrote: »

lol - which of your claims is this supposed to prove? That downsizers don't sell to developers? That capital appreciation is 'more important' (?) than yield?

Shouldn't your 'proof' really be related in some way to what you are claiming?

Shouldn't your proof relate to what you are claiming? You are relying on rationale and making sense. Where are these investors forcing rents down? Rents are rising.
Reality is that from the piece I have quoted investors are not as active in the market. They are not going in. The percentage of investor mortgages which are in distress exceeds that of the owner occupier mortgages. These will be the first onto the market. they will not be replaced by other investors as you are suggesting. you are saying that yield is more important than capital gain.
Your proof?

Monty Burnz

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Shouldn't your proof relate to what you are claiming? You are relying on rationale and making sense. Where are these investors forcing rents down? Rents are rising.
Reality is that from the piece I have quoted investors are not as active in the market. They are not going in. The percentage of investor mortgages which are in distress exceeds that of the owner occupier mortgages. These will be the first onto the market. they will not be replaced by other investors as you are suggesting. you are saying that yield is more important than capital gain.
Your proof?

Blah blah blah blah blah. What a load of horsesh!t.

Milk & Honey

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Blah blah blah blah blah. What a load of horsesh!t.

That's your proof? It thought as much.

Monty Burnz

Milk & Honey wrote: »

That's your proof? It thought as much.

You are such a bullsh!tter. You keep making claims you can't prove, offering no proof, yet demanding proof from others. Talking out of your hole the whole time.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Where are these investors forcing rents down? Rents are rising.

Oddly enough, the most recent DAFT rental report (Q2, 2012) shows rents FALLING on YOY basis in 29 out of 35 measured areas. And the biggest YOY increase is less than 2% - less than general inflation!

Talking right out of your hole.

areyawell

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are you sure your mate wasn't pulling your leg? You couldn't get a decent liveable place in Cork City/suburbs for that kind of price in the early nineties.

No he isn't. Was talking to him today. What you see on daft is market price. You will get the house much cheaper than what is displaying on daft. Just like going to carzone and haggling down the price of the car. His one was originally listed for 70k, went down to 65k as wasnt much interest. He told them 55k is the max he could go and would have the money next week. They accepted.

Monty Burnz

areyawell wrote: »

No he isn't. Was talking to him today. What you see on daft is market price. You will get the house much cheaper than what is displaying on daft. Just like going to carzone and haggling down the price of the car. His one was originally listed for 70k, went down to 65k as wasnt much interest. He told them 55k is the max he could go and would have the money next week. They accepted.

Thanks for the info - fair play to him.

Milk & Honey

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You are such a bullsh!tter. You keep making claims you can't prove, offering no proof, yet demanding proof from others. Talking out of your hole the whole time.

You are the one who started demanding proof and yet failed to produce it.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Oddly enough, the most recent DAFT rental report (Q2, 2012) shows rents FALLING on YOY basis in 29 out of 35 measured areas. And the biggest YOY increase is less than 2% - less than general inflation!

Talking right out of your hole.

Oddly enough the Accommodation thread is reporting rental shortages and gazumping starting for rentals.
Where are the big investors forcing yields down?

areyawell

Milk & Honey wrote: »

You are the one who started demanding proof and yet failed to produce it.



Oddly enough the Accommodation thread is reporting rental shortages and gazumping starting for rentals.
Where are the big investors forcing yields down?

Get a room;)

Monty Burnz

Milk & Honey wrote: »

You are the one who started demanding proof and yet failed to produce it.



Oddly enough the Accommodation thread is reporting rental shortages and gazumping starting for rentals.
Where are the big investors forcing yields down?

You've just been proved flat out wrong. The game is over. You lost.

omahaid

I wouldn't go using daft.ie as a reliable source of information.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0802/houses-business.html

Monty Burnz

omahaid wrote: »

I wouldn't go using daft.ie as a reliable source of information.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0802/houses-business.html

Information, or prediction? Are they the same thing?

Edit: just noticed a stunning piece of information in that report:

Limerick is now the best place to invest in buy-to-let property with an average yield of 4.07%.

Holy crap, 4%?? Best in the country? (although we recently learned that yield is not as significant as capital appreciation from a reliable source here...)

Precise Pangolin

Milk & Honey wrote: »

You are the one who started demanding proof and yet failed to produce it.

Wow. You really are a bullsh!tter. Pardon my French.

yosser hughes

Milk & Honey wrote: »

You are the one who started demanding proof and yet failed to produce it.



Oddly enough the Accommodation thread is reporting rental shortages and gazumping starting for rentals.
Where are the big investors forcing yields down?

That's bertiespeak. Go away out of that. You're embarassing yourself.:rolleyes:

Milk & Honey

Precise Pangolin wrote: »

Wow. You really are a bullsh!tter. Pardon my French.

Typical. When you can't attack the post, attack the poster.

Precise Pangolin

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Typical. When you can't attack the post, attack the poster.

If your posts had any substance, I would have rubbished them. Unfortunately that wasn't an option.

Milk & Honey

Precise Pangolin wrote: »

If your posts had any substance, I would have rubbished them. Unfortunately that wasn't an option.

More low level abuse, but no identification of the substance let alone contradiction of it.

Precise Pangolin

Milk & Honey wrote: »

More low level abuse, but no identification of the substance let alone contradiction of it.

I'm supposed to identify the substance that isn't there? :rolleyes:

I've seen how you work this scam: you demand proof, and then pretend you didn't get it. Do you think people don't see through this?

Milk & Honey

Precise Pangolin wrote: »

I'm supposed to identify the substance that isn't there? :rolleyes:

I've seen how you work this scam: you demand proof, and then pretend you didn't get it. Do you think people don't see through this?

I didn't start by demanding proof. You pal did. The proof he eventually produced didn't support him at all. He claims yield is more important than capital gain. I have done the maths, he hasn't. Go figure.

Monty Burnz

Milk & Honey wrote: »

I have done the maths, he hasn't. Go figure.

I'd ask to see the maths, but you are an epic bullsh!tter and I'd probably be wasting my time.

It's an idiotic claim, of a type that could only be made by someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

Milk & Honey

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'd ask to see the maths, but you are an epic bullsh!tter and I'd probably be wasting my time.

It's an idiotic claim, of a type that could only be made by someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

I have already told you. I did a 10 year projection. What did you do? Apart from say things are stupid and trying to pretend things are the case, nothing!

Monty Burnz

Milk & Honey wrote: »

I have already told you. I did a 10 year projection. What did you do? Apart from say things are stupid and trying to pretend things are the case, nothing!

You did a ten year projection and came up with a universal truth for all potential investors? And you can't share it with us...why am I not surprised? Bullsh!tter.

yosser hughes

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You did a ten year projection and came up with a universal truth for all potential investors? And you can't share it with us...why am I not surprised? Bullsh!tter.

I don't know why you bother Monty. You're wasting your time with this guy.
Let him off.

Milk & Honey

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You did a ten year projection and came up with a universal truth for all potential investors? And you can't share it with us...why am I not surprised? Bullsh!tter.

I have told you what I did. You can't do a projection at all, yet you can come up with what you say is a universal truth.

What do you want, a worked example? Are you still in kindergarten?

H2UMrsRobinson

This maybe oversimplifying things, for which i apologise, but I've got a roof over my head and food in the cupboards. I actually don't give a **** if I'm renting or buying. I'm happy, warm, dry and alive. I will eventually die and will probably only be remembered by my direct descendants. If I've done my job right they will not care wether or not I left them a house or not. They will simply remember me for the person I was and the memories they have of me. If you got the dough then buy a house, if you don't - then don't.

(Footnote, Absinthe makes you quite the philosopher and all round spouter of nonsense)